Excerpt:.....14(4).;the order dated 21st april, 1971 passed by the collector, pali, cancelling the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to snow cause against the proper auction, was illegal and void having been passed in contravention of the mandatory provisions of rule 14(4) of the 1970 rules.;writ allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile..........has committed breach of any of the condition of allotment.provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.5. in view of the proviso of clause (4) it has to be held that the order dated 21st april 1971 passed by the collector, pali, canceling the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proper auction, was illegal and void having be passed in contravention of the mandatory prevision of rule 14(4) of the 1970 rules.6. the writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 21st april 1970 passed by the collector pali, is quashed. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:

S.C. Agarwal, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector, Pali, dated 21-4-1971, whereby the allotment of agriculture land made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, is asunder. Tehsildar, Pali, by his order dated 21st July 1958, had granted permission to the petitioner and ten others to cultivate certain agricultural land in village Neemli Patalan for a period of one year. The said permission was renewed from year to year. Subsequently the possession of the petitioner is respect of 15 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 162 marked as 162/10 was regularized be the Tehsildar, Pali, in terms of notification dated 5th October 1067, issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the formal order of allotment was passed in favour of the petitioner. The said order of allotment passed by the Tehsildar, Pali, was cancelled by the Collector, Pali by impugned order dated 21st April 1971, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules,1957, which were framed by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of power confuted by Clause (xviii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 261 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1056 and that even though the said rules have been repealed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules 1970, Rule 21 of the 1970 Rules preserves orders passed under the 1957 Rules. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that in view of the proviso to Clause (4) Rule 14 of the 1970 Rules which confirms on the Collector the power to cartel an allotment, it was incumbent upon the Collector, Pali, to afford to after petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order, canceling the allotment in his favour.

3. In spite of sufficient notice to the respondents, I find that no reply has been filed on their behalf to the averments contained in the writ petition. It may be noticed that even in the affidavit in support of the stay petition it has been asserted that the impugned order canceling of allotment had been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and even though the by Government Advocate had appeared to oppose the stay petition, no affidavit controvert the aforesaid allegation was filed on behalf of the respondents. In these circumstances, I have to proceed on the assumption hat the allegations made by the petitioner that no notice was served on him by the Collector, Pali, and that he was not afforded any opportunity of being heard before the impugned order dated 21st April, 1971, canceling the allotment of land in his favour was passed, is correct.

4. Rule 14(4) of the 15-70 Rules provides as under:

14(4) The Collector shall give the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer (or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of these rules either suo moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or his been made against the rules or in case the allotter has committed breach of any of the condition of allotment.

Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.

5. In view of the proviso of Clause (4) it has to be held that the order dated 21st April 1971 passed by the Collector, Pali, canceling the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proper auction, was illegal and void having be passed in contravention of the mandatory prevision of Rule 14(4) of the 1970 Rules.

6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 21st April 1970 passed by the Collector Pali, is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.